The Virginian-Pilot
©
NORFOLK
A local union did not discriminate against a female dock worker who was caught urinating outside while on the job, a federal court jury found Wednesday.
Sonyo Tillett-Bond sued her union, International Longshoremen's Association Local 1458, claiming she was kept off the job when a man who did the same thing was not penalized.
"Thank God for Jesus," Jerry McMannen, president of ILA Local 1784, said after the verdict. He declined to comment further.
Local 1458 merged with Local 1784 last year.
Tillett-Bond, 48, said it was more important to let the public know what happened than to have won the case.
"My goal was to make sure this was brought to the public so the local can't try to violate anyone's rights again," she said outside U.S. District Court.
The local's attorney, Deborah Waters, said the jury verdict vindicated the union, proving that it tried to help Tillett-Bond, not hurt her.
"Local 1784 did not discriminate against Ms. Tillett-Bond and has done everything it can to protect her rights," Waters said. "The jury agreed, and the local is glad it can put this behind it."
Tillett-Bond settled a similar discrimination action against APM Terminals, which hired her to clean up at a site it leased at Portsmouth Marine Terminal. The terms were not disclosed.
Union members testified that it was APM supervisors who acted against Tillett-Bond after she was caught urinating at the port.
She was working on a cleanup crew on Oct. 5, 2006, when she and a male co-worker relieved themselves, thinking they were hidden from view by some large containers. She testified that the bathroom was too far away and she had no vehicle to take her there.
A passing truck driver saw Tillett-Bond with her pants down and reported it to a supervisor.
Tillett-Bond said she was ridiculed afterward and was refused work assignments.
Co-workers told her she was "caught with her pants down," that there was a bucket and bed pan with her name on it, and used names like "slut" and "nasty" to describe her, the lawsuit said.
Union officials testified that if she was ever denied work it was because no work was available that day or because she didn't show up.
They testified - and supplied records showing - that they helped her get vindicated and back to work through the grievance process.
She remains a union member but said she has been out on disability since September.
Tillett-Bond's lawyer, SuAnne Hardee Bryant, said federal discrimination claims are difficult to win.
U.S. District Court Magistrate Judge Tommy E. Miller had already thrown out one count of the discrimination suit, which claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress, before the jury began deliberating. He ruled that Tillett-Bond hadn't proved that during the two-day trial.
Tillett-Bond sought $300,000 in lost wages, doctor bills and "mental anguish," plus punitive damages.
The six-man, one-woman jury spent about four hours deliberating Tuesday before reaching its verdict.
Tim McGlone, (757) 446-2343, tim.mcglone@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Too urinate or not to urinate (in public)....
Ahhh, the question of: "To urinate or not to urinate (in public)....that is the question...." This case was very weak to begin with. She claimed mental anguish after only (8) days of work and then tried to get compensated for doing .... (what)? Very weak case and I'm really surprised her Atty. took the case knowing it wasn't a win-win situation. The Union is a VERY strong organization and they'll stick together like glue (right/wrong or indifferent) they'll all sing the same sheet of music and (10) union members against (1) individual....it's a very easy situation to make heads-or-tails of this.
She lost. Simple as that. Time to move on.
Now, if you'll excuse me....I have to use the restroom.
Porta Potty
Being a female in a perdominately male industry is tough. We do not receive the same set of standards. I have been in the construction industry for awhile now and thankfully the company I work for and the Customers we build for are courteous enough to provide the proper facilities in a decent distance.
At one project, even though they already had 10 porta-johns out there on-site, they brought in another with a lock so I did not have to share with the men. I do believe she is out of order on her demands, but she was discriminated against.
woman sues for descrimination
This is crazy. First off you who called in, Next maybe the person didn't see the man. Also it is common knowledge that men will hide and pee and woman can't because they have to pull their pants down. More exposure. That's why woman who have dignity don't do it. Who wants to show there butt in public. Next the people saying about restrooms. You know every business can't have a restroom every 10 feet. Gosh how many parks have you been to where you had to walk a long distance. This lady knew she had to go to the bathroom WAY before she went behind this dumpster. She should have planned ahead so this didn't happen.
What really happened is this happened and she let it go. But when she had to take time off for disability she either had time to think about it or she was short cash and decided to sue. These days people sue for everything and anything they think they can win at.
This lady said the outcome didn't matter but ok really what did she want to show everyone how trashy she is.
Devil's Advocate...
In response to vabeachgirl - It's called the 'Expectancy Violation Theory', which is based on mostly the unwritten rules and roles that society has. Unfortunately, many of us seem to fall victim to it...
As for the jury, I'd be interested in knowing why it was comprised of 6 men and 1 woman? Seems awfully disproportionate in a gender discrimination case, at least at first glance...
"Tillett-Bond says she lost
"Tillett-Bond says she lost eight days of work and then went on disability for undisclosed medical issues for several months", then went on to sue for $$$. Any fool can figure out why so many of our jobs are being moved out of this country. U.S. company's can't afford the unions and bs lawsuits like this.
So this is what you call reporting
I don't call coping one side of a lawsuit reporting. Nothing in the article says anything about the testiomy in court. I guess the other side had something to say since they won!
To Eald
You wrote "You don't think a woman in Northwest Alaska, who can see Russia from her backyard, has never had to urinate in the woods after a long day of hunting innocent elk or caribou?"
I'm sure she's done that more than once. But what manly Paul Bunyan type Alaskan woodsman would complain about that? Sarah's hot!
horrible double standard
A man can do something and there is no uproar at all. A woman does the same exact thing, and all of a sudden she is referred to negatively and called all sorts of names. It's ridiculous. Just because it is EASIER for a man to urinate in public, does not mean that a woman should be punished for not being equipped with the same anatomy. If nature calls, you have to answer eventually, whether you are male or female. I hope she wins her lawsuit.
stating the obvious
I’m going to state the obvious here as delicately as I can. There is a difference between a man urinating outside and a woman doing the same. The obvious difference being that a man can do that rather discreetly and a woman has to bare her soul to the world (in a sense) and someone viewing that from a distance may see more than they bargained for. The man could be doing the same and it is possible no one would even notice so maybe he wasn’t seen, therefore not an issue. The problem is that someone SAW her. May not be fair but it is basic biology.
Quote from the article:
"Johnson testified that he was concerned that the incident could lead to a sexual harassment lawsuit. He wrote a letter to the union's executive board telling them that Bond "cannot work at APM Terminal with me.""
You can't argue that if somebody was to be called on the carpet, both male and female should have been. But my guess is that Johnson didn't fear a lawsuit from the male violator, so he focused on the female as the problem. He saw her as a threat to both his job, and to his crew's jobs. It wasn't the right assessment in this case, but unless you've been a supervisor, you can't appreciate the fear and apprehension instilled during federally mandated EEOC training. This training subjects supervisors to a constant barrage of horror stories about career ending sexual harassment lawsuits that involve incidents over which they may have little actual control. My guess is that Johnson just over-reacted to cover his butt (better than she did, by the way...)